Jump to content

User talk:Edokter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sardanaphalus (talk | contribs)
119,752 edits
No edit summary
Line 242: Line 242:


Unlike yourself, I acted constructively and removed the Div-col columns. If the formatting available here is losing your straw, please campaign elsewhere to have it removed, not stalk people using it to improve this {{strike|computing project's}} encyclopedia's presentation. [[User:Sardanaphalus|Sardanaphalus]] ([[User talk:Sardanaphalus|talk]]) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlike yourself, I acted constructively and removed the Div-col columns. If the formatting available here is losing your straw, please campaign elsewhere to have it removed, not stalk people using it to improve this {{strike|computing project's}} encyclopedia's presentation. [[User:Sardanaphalus|Sardanaphalus]] ([[User talk:Sardanaphalus|talk]]) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

== Doctor Who Series 9 - Block One ==

Hello, my (and many other users) edits to [[Doctor Who (series 9)|this]] Doctor Who page over the past few days have been continuously reverted. It was confirmed last week by ''Doctor Who Magazine'' that Block One of filming consisted of episodes 3 and 4 (I happen to have the magazine myself and know this to be true). This information was fully sourced and nobody seemed to have a problem with it being included in the page. Yet on Wednesday, it was confirmed that Toby Whithouse, Daniel O'Hara and Derek Ritchie would be respectively writing, directing and producing this production block. We know (as stated by the BBC) that the episodes in Block One are written by Whithouse. We know that Block One is episodes 3 and 4 from DWM. Therefore Toby Whithouse is writing episodes 3 and 4. Is there something that I've missed or does this make complete sense? --[[Special:Contributions/86.134.246.132|86.134.246.132]] ([[User talk:86.134.246.132|talk]]) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:13, 16 January 2015

Question at Village Pump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#AfC_Invite_Template_Questions

Media Viewer RfC close

A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. Please either do a full close or withdraw your partial close. (Or better yet withdraw the partial close and list yourself as a first name for a panel of 3 to do a full close, as multiple people have said this warrants.)

Note that Part 1 issues an immediate call to implement. A "No consensus" result on part two eliminates the 7 day bar against immediate implementation. As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to discuss this with you in good faith, you have demonstrated bad faith by going actively non-responsive both here and on Administrator's Noticeboard. (I find it painfully notable you are exactly repeating MDann52 actively non-responsive behavior, and that it was a contributing factor in the case against him.) You leave me no choice but to file a formal action on Administrator's Noticeboard. ******** In the middle of writing this I see someone has preformed a close on the RfC just moments ago. Consider this a notice that I have a standing objection to your part2 close and I may still file a close review, but I am am going to examine this new development before filing formal action. Alsee (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long are you going to badger me over this? I have closed the RfC (or part thereof) and you don't agree with the outcome. What "formal action" would you seek? That someone else reclose it until it agrees with your desired outcome? I don't think that os going to happen. If it was a bad close, another administrator would have taken some action already, but none have. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have avoided "badgering" you. However I am required to notify you of WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose Alsee (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tag and /doc

(Not an accident; these are superfluous and redundant.)

Like the state= in Navboxes etc..?

Also, why did you remove the correction to the code heading?

(Rv; tables are too wide, even at 1280px wide!)

What are you trying to view this on? No problems here, at whatever (reasonable) resolution tried. (Usual is 1680 by 1050.)

But if there is a problem, why didn't you try to fix it?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin...? I'm viewing this on my 1280x960 screen. 1280 is still the most common screenwidth used. If you think everyone sees the internet as you do on your screen, then you have a problem; Let's forget mobile and tablets! If your layout is breaking outside screens of 1024 wide, it is considered badly broken design.
I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits. You cannot expect other to clean up the mess. (Though I try to weed them out.)
The parameters again... In templates, there is no need to complement unnamed parameters with named one, and vice versa. If you pay a little attention to where each is used, you will find unnamed parameters are ususally ulilized for required and subsequent optional parameters where no ambiguity can exist. Any more complex parameter structure uses named parameters, or they are added as additional parameters where unnamed parameter already exist. But never should named and unnamed parameter names be combined to accept both. Your approach to provide maximum flexibility (at least, that is what I asume), only runs the risk of creating ambiguity, and locking up the code, blocking any future development (especially in core- and meta template). So I am keeping an eye out on your edits, and will revert (or fix when possible) if they cause any potential problems. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to begin...? Indeed. Before posting the above, did you read through it imagining it was directed at you?
"I also do not have the time to go through all the changes and weed out the mistakes. That usually means a revert of most recent edits ... (Though I try to weed them out.)"
You "choose not to spend time going through all the changes to weed out what you've decided are mistakes"; that is what "usually means a revert of most recent edits". Mistakes or not, if you did try to "weed them out", reversion wouldn't be your default response; nor would it be your default response<aside>accompanied by a dismissive and/or patronizing and/or authoritarian comment or commentary (as, for instance, above)</aside> if you did try to work things out with good faith and in collaboration.
You report that tables are "oversized"<aside>as a result, I imagine, of how the page appeared on your screen/screens?</aside> but give no indication or suggestion as to what may be amiss, even after a report that they seem fine at various resolutions (including, incidentally, 1280 by 960). As regards parameters, your attention may've been drawn away from situations that are already potentially ambiguous: Template:Tnf, for example. You are mistaken if you believe I'm aiming to provide maximum flexibility – which, even if that were the case, does not necessarily nor "only" run the risk of creating ambiguity and "locking up the code".
Reversion and keeping an eye on someone's edits... Sounds miserable.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with it... It may sou harsch, but we are all volunteers, and you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes. I give pointers where I can, but if you are reverted, the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here. You seem to take this too personally; it isn't. However, your editing style resembles a "do first, ask questions later" attitude, and that does not go well with other editors, including me. I watch a lot of templates, and I find edits that adds overcomplicated code/CSS while not providing any net gain, I will revert. So stop coming here, and discuss the issues on the apropriate talk page in the future. Again, this is nothing personal; your code just sucks. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "...you cannot demand from someone to fix your mistakes." (Note authoritarian tone; not volunteer-like).
    Where is this demand?
  2. "...the first place to post comments is the template talk page, not here."
    Have you considered<aside>with good faith in mind</aside> why I choose to make posts such as the above here rather than elsewhere?
  3. "...You seem to take this too personally"
    Given the manner of your interaction, you don't think that might apply to you?
  4. "a "do first, ask questions later" attitude"
    More accurately, a "do something, see what happens" approach, otherwise too much time disappears. It's preferable to a "revert, reprimand and dismiss under the guise of discussion" approach.
  5. "...while not providing any net gain"
    A net gain – according to whom?
  6. Someone's code might suck, but, sadly, rigidity and the need to be right suck far more fundamentally. It's not a black-or-white world.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of my "choose not to spend time" implies a demand that I do. I fail to see how stating fact is in any way authoritative. If you cannot be bothered to make time to discuss your changes, then don't complain when you are reverted. Being bold never ensures your edits stick. My urging you to take it to the template talk page is nothing more reminding you of WP:BRD. If I do seem dismissive, it is only after having to revert multiple time for the same reason. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSS image crop

Edok, you mentioned an editor introduced a bug into Template:CSS image crop. It's probably a good idea to summarize the bug on the talk page to hopefully prevent others from making the same mistake. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That won't help. A comment in the template itself may work though. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've notice the suppress output newlines button by now. You may also find enter "max" in bSize instead of a specific value to be helpful. Also fixed the "XXX>YYY" when scaling down. What do you think of the new buttons? Oh, and by the way, you're welcome to tweak the aesthetics a bit if you'd like since you've got much more skin making experience than I do. Just be careful about moving the crop image preview box because the click to crop lines may not line up properly if you change that. —CodeHydro 21:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cascading Style Sheets

(Table columns are Bad™)

What, then, produces an output along the lines of the previous version, i.e. with columns whose widths depend on their contents (or perhaps the widest content) rather than e.g. a (potentially very wide) screen width?

(And if table columns are "bad", why are they a standard, a staple?)

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred way is using CSS columns (and {{div col}} is the only generic template using CSS columns). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps placing Template:Tnf within a width-limiting div will work. I'll experiment.
What problem/s do wiki/HTML table columns create that CSS doesn't..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardanaphalus: Table columns are for tables, not for formatting. They’re a standard because tables are a very good way of displaying tabular data. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<q>...</q> in titles

Since there barely seems to be any interest in the question at WT:AT (which seems the logical place for it), I wanted to ask you if there’s a project page that does have discussion about it. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know. So by all means, post your thought there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit template-protected/editintro

(Undid revision 639370927 by Sardanaphalus (talk) ......

Were all changes I made here improper / unacceptable / not to your taste / etc ..?

Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if there is a way to have co-producers added to the Template:Infobox-television page since some of the shows and cartoons have co-producers. Or is there another way to list co-producers? I'm just asking. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be listed under 'Producers', but maybe you should ask on Template talk:Infobox television or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who episodes

A working version of the use of sublists in List of Doctor Who serials is now viewable in my sandbox. Edits have included conforming table widths, all tables using two decimals for viewership, using one source for all viewership/AI sources instead of a mess of multiple, removing minisodes (these can be added to Other Stories, given that they're not actual episode that contribute to the television series), no double lines after each table, among others (available in the sandbox history). Your thoughts? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! But I thought the whole point was to transclude the series tables from their respective pages? Or are you planning to makes these changes there? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, exactly. The edits I've done to the tables in my sandbox, I'll put these modifications across to the respective series pages (adding the summaries back in), then transclude the series table to the TV series list. So, all good to proceed? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil service

(→‎See also: Fix hacky dovs, list layout and bypass redirects)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the nocolbreak class. What makes it less "hacky" than display:inline-block;..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inline-block's pupose to to display a block element inline. It only worked because the lists inside it were block element too. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've made a note of nocolbreak. I'm sorry to see that you appear set against the point of "Start/End div col" and I'm wondering what you make of [1]. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to echo Redrose64's comments. The use of comment markers should be minimal. Although WediaWiki strips these markers, they are technically not allowed inside HTML tags, but are considered allowable (sparingly) inside parser functions. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not pre-empt the outcome of an "XfD" discussion

Please do not pre-empt/second-guess/presume the outcome of a "[something] for discussion" discussion by making edits such as these. At least one of them also involved removals that were not addressed in the edit summary. I have requested that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Template:Start div col is closed as subverted and will now restore the pages these edits have affected.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely preparing for a potential outcome. You reverting everything is quite disruptive, so I will roll back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edokter, contrary to your assertion, it is you who is edit warring. May I suggest, quite strongly, that you desist? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reverted your changes. Please wait for the RfD outcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the edit war. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module talk:Episode list

Regarding your edit summary on this edit, I certainly was not "abusing" the template. In fact, I wasn't even calling for comments! If you read the entire thread, you'll see that Technical 13 invited me to reactivate my request once I'd fully tested my proposed change in the sandbox. I did so, and was merely reactivating the request per Technical 13's instruction.

While I readily admit that my proposed fix is not the most elegant solution, my last comment was, "...unless somebody else chimes in with a better proposal." Well, two weeks passed and nobody chimed in. Therefore, I was ready to press ahead with implementation of my proposed change. That is why I reactivated the request—to catch the attention of somebody who can help me with that (as I lack the proper permissions).

Again, I was not calling for comments. I would appreciate if you would assume good faith in the future. Thanks, and happy editing. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was still used improperly... The protected edit request is there to call an admin (or template editor) handling these requests to make one straight edit, meaning it must be accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code. If there is any discussion still pending, or code missing, it should not be used. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edokter, I'll note that tested code in the sandbox counts as "accompanied by a chunk of ready-to-paste code". I've re-enabled the request because it looks like there is consensus in that discussion that the extra space in some situations is preferable to no space in others. I'd implement it myself as a  Template editor except that Lua makes me uncomfortable and I'd rather let one of our very talented Lua coders do it. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hello again & Happy New Year.

Before the need forces me to "go formal", I'm asking a few folks ahead of time (you're the first actually) whom I've come to consider 'rather capable' & 'technically savvy' while I've been 'lurking about' Wikipedia to stop by Wikisource and report your findings to the points outlined in a quick and easy survey - well quick and easy if you get past my opening blatherings that is.

We're looking to see if further "development" is worth pursuing (even possible?) if a high enough percentage of contributors give us all positive results. Explanation, details, links, etc. all start here.

Thanks in advance -- pass this on to whomever you feel can build upon what I hope you found to be at least an interesting bit of new wiki-info if not an intriguing possibility to build upon somehow. George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Template edit affects hundreds of articles, but nobody cares. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi Edokter the cite button on right of RefToolbar (2.0b), is not working since last few days at Odia WP (or.wikipedia.org). Please help to fix the cite button bug. Thank you. --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't help you here. There have been no changes in our code for months, so the problem appears to be caused on or.wikipedia.org. Has common.js been edits there lately? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
common.js was last edited on 13 October 2014.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue. Perhaps asking on Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar may help. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday the bug was fixed. The culprit was a deprecated function live() which was finally removed a few weeks ago.--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campaighnbox

Here. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

template talkpage did not help

it is just a few replies and where the discussion stopped 7 days ago without any results and the user talkpages nothing was being done so can anyone please do something about the problem that the result bars and seperated to far vertically, if i knew how to do it myself i would but i cant so am asking you or someone else to help Dannis243 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about Template talk:Infobox political party, I posted a comment there to indicate where the problem is. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

§ To do should link to User:Edokter#To do. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, because that section is not on my talk page, but my user page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

q tag revisited

I’m afraid much of my responses to you at WT:WHO was more personal in nature than strictly on-topic. But I stand by it all. If no one (including yourself) took action on actually getting titles to use <q>...</q>, I was ready to remove the quotes from those DW articles to remedy this isolated inconsistency. If it becomes widespread (even if it’s only you spreading it), that excuse for removing them goes away, and it would spur some actual discussion. But leaving it as is means there’s no legitimate reason for the quotes to be on those few pages, meaning they don’t belong. So the way I see it, you’re either in or out, either you support and promote the practice—on more than a dozen articles—or you waive any right to object to those few getting reverted to standard. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at WT:WHO. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was making suggestions, not demands. If you’re content to edit a TV season’s worth of articles and then take no further action for your cause, that’s your call. That kind of hands-off approach just doesn’t seem like any kind of way to garner community support for anything. All I meant by my comment here was, It just doesn’t seem like it matters to you, or else I’d think you’d be doing more about it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2015-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [2]
  • You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [3]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
  • A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [4]
  • The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [5]
  • The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [6] [7] [8]
  • The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [9]

Future changes

  • You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Div col

(Not your call. Take it to his talk page.)

What makes it "your" call, then? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary. The chance of anyone else replying is zero. Redrose has already already expressed that he is ignoring the discussion. And one of my jobs is to prevent discussions from dragging on ad infinitum. The matter is closed, move on. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where, before your action today<aside>or on January 7</aside> did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Edokter. I monitored the discussion, but saw no need to interject. Please step away from the horse. --  Gadget850 talk 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where, before your action today/yesterday<aside>or on January 7</aside> did Redrose express his decision to ignore the discussion..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered that. I you can't bother to check the timestamps, I'm not going to continue this discussion either. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulleted list/doc

(Final straw...)

Unlike yourself, I acted constructively and removed the Div-col columns. If the formatting available here is losing your straw, please campaign elsewhere to have it removed, not stalk people using it to improve this computing project's encyclopedia's presentation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Series 9 - Block One

Hello, my (and many other users) edits to this Doctor Who page over the past few days have been continuously reverted. It was confirmed last week by Doctor Who Magazine that Block One of filming consisted of episodes 3 and 4 (I happen to have the magazine myself and know this to be true). This information was fully sourced and nobody seemed to have a problem with it being included in the page. Yet on Wednesday, it was confirmed that Toby Whithouse, Daniel O'Hara and Derek Ritchie would be respectively writing, directing and producing this production block. We know (as stated by the BBC) that the episodes in Block One are written by Whithouse. We know that Block One is episodes 3 and 4 from DWM. Therefore Toby Whithouse is writing episodes 3 and 4. Is there something that I've missed or does this make complete sense? --86.134.246.132 (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edokter&oldid=642781370"